CECIL JAMES SIMMONS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Cecil Simmons appealed his conviction for grand larceny and uttering worthless checks, challenging the validity of his guilty plea entered without counsel. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed because the trial court failed to inform him of his right to state-appointed counsel before accepting his waiver of counsel, rendering any waiver unintelligent under Florida law.
A defendant's waiver of counsel in a felony case is invalid unless the record demonstrates that he was informed of his right to state-appointed counsel at no cost if indigent. While specific words of art are not necessary, the record must clearly show the defendant understood this right before an intelligent waiver can occur.
“when one charged with a felony is presented for arraignment, the judge should inquire as to whether he has a lawyer to represent him. If he has none, but wants one, and inquiry reveals that he is unable to employ one, he should be informed of his right to state-appointed counsel, then, and at his trial.”
Establishes the required procedure for informing defendants of their right to state-appointed counsel at felony arraignments
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSimmons was charged with grand larceny and two counts of uttering worthless checks over fifty dollars. He entered a guilty plea to all charges without…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Knowing And Intelligent Waiver Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was charged with grand larceny and two counts of uttering worthless checks for over Fifty Dollars. He entered a plea of guilty on all charges, was adjudicated guilty, and sentenced to three years in the State Penitentiary for grand larceny. Sentence was suspended on the charges of uttering worthless checks.
Appellant was not represented by counsel at any stage of the proceedings. Prior to entering the plea of guilty, the trial court advised the defendant that he was entitled to counsel if he so desired. Defendant stated that he did not want counsel to represent him. This is reflected by the minutes of the clerk in the trial court, inasmuch as there was no transcript of the hearing brought to this court.
The trial court denied appellant’s Motion to Vacate Judgment and Sentence pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. This denial of relief is now before us on the grounds that he was not represented by counsel and was never advised of his right to “state appointed counsel” at no cost to himself.
The appellee contends that it was sufficient that the right to counsel was offered by the trial judge and that the words “state appointed counsel” did not have to be included in the offer.
The Florida Supreme Court, in Sardinia v. State, Fla.1964, 168 So.2d 674, has sug*216gested the procedure to be followed by the trial courts of Florida at felony arraignments, in order that an accused might competently and intelligently waive his right to counsel. The court, on page 677, stated:
******
“ * * * when one charged with a felony is presented for arraignment, the judge should inquire as to whether he has a lawyer to represent him. If he has none, but wants one, and inquiry reveals that he is unable to employ one, he should be informed of his right to state-appointed counsel, then, and at his trial. With such advice, the accused can make an intelligent election. * *
******
“ * * * Unless the right to counsel is intelligently waived at the arraignment or by subsequent action of the accused, a conviction grounded upon a guilty plea without the aid of counsel would be constitutionally defective.”
******
See also Ratcliff v. State, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 181.
The procedure was not followed in the instant case. The minutes of the clerk do not reflect that the defendant was ever advised that, if indigent, he had a right to state appointed counsel.
We do not believe any specific words of art are necessary, but the record must indicate that the defendant knows he has a right, if indigent, to be represented by counsel at no cost to himself before he can intelligently waive counsel on a felony charge.
The decision of the court below is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to grant the appellant a full evi-dentiary hearing as to whether or not there was an intelligent waiver of his right to counsel in this matter.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Turner v. State, 177 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…ignment in the first case, advised of his right as an indigent to have the court appoint an attorney for him. He thereafter intelligently waived his right to-counsel. See Sardinia v. State, Fla. 1964, 168 So. 2d 674; Simmons v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 175 So. 2d 215. In the second case the defendant was represented by the Public Defender’s, office at the arraignment and pled not guilty. At the time of trial, he changed his. plea to guilty while still represented by the Public Defender. The trial court was the…
-
Covington v. State, 353 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…was not properly informed of the availability of a court appointed attorney upon a showing of indigency, no knowing and intelligent waiver of his sixth amendment right to counsel was made. Mason v. State, 176 So. 2d 76 (Fla.1965); Simmons v. State, 175 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); French v. State, 161 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court must be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded.…
Authorities Cited
- Rostell Justice v. Warren Laundry & DRY Cleaners, Inc., 168 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1964)
- Ratcliff v. State, 168 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)